Friday, March 25, 2016

Lying in an Open Statement

It is very rare for someone to lie outright in an open statement. Instead, there is an avoidance within the liar, not always correctly attributed to a tender conscience, but with a source of wishing to avoid the internal stress of a direct lie. Wife: "You once told me, many years ago in London, that your first wife was an invalid. Was that true?"Husband: "If it wasn't true, I wouldn't have said it. Wife: "So your wife was an invalid?Husband: "Yes"Even writers can portray the avoidance of open or direct lying in the Free Editing Process correctly. When one speaks freely, it is rare to formulate a sentence that is an outright lie. Most lies are constructed from missing information, or from responses. To lie in an open statement, most often of these (which are rare) there is an element of someone else's language within the words of the liar. This is quite remarkable to note. When one fabricates reality, we are not only in the low percentage realm, but if careful examination of the words is made, even in this low percentage (less than 10%), the overwhelming majority of this form use words from the interviewer, even if the interviewer is not conducting a formal interview, such as a teacher, or spouse. "I went to the store at 9am this morning" is stated when, in reality, the subject did not leave his house. This sometimes surprises investigators at the utter boldness of the lie. Yet, when reviewing the audio we find often a prompting of the lie in the language of the interviewer, in effect: the interviewer prompted or even "taught" the subject how to lie. Refrain yourself from many words when you ask questions, lest your own words reveal your thoughts and teach your subject how to lie.

Wife: "You once told me, many years ago in London, that your first wife was an invalid. Was that true?"Husband: "If it wasn't true, I wouldn't have said it. Here, the husband avoided lying. Instead, he went to a different topic: his own character. This is not only a tangent and an avoidance, but it is, in a sense, a 'sermon' of sorts. It is emotional persuasion, basing the belief, not upon the truth, but the person, himself, who just happens to be a liar. His first wife was in excellent health until he slowly poisoned her. Wife: "So your wife was an invalid?Husband: "Yes"At this point, it is reduced to "yes or no", which also avoids the Free Editing Process which puts in squarely in the low stress zone. The husband could even, at this point, say "I am telling the truth" because, for him, he, himself, did not freely offer,"My first wife was an invalid" on his own. If he had, he would not have been able to look at this lie, and lie about it with,"I told the truth."Avoid leading questions. They will not get to the truth. Wife: "I am going upstairs to take rest. I am not feeling well."Husband: "That's fine. I will go get your milk and bring it to you."

The conversation is from the movie "The Two Mrs. Carrolls", which came out in 1947, which was 69 years ago. The husband's "that's fine" reply to his wife, might be just a friendly "okee doke, you do that", or it might be him showing his dominance over her. But it's a perfect line, because he's saying it's fine when things couldn't be any less fine! It makes me want to watch the whole movie!

OT Peter, this one really has me stumped. New developments in the case of Jack McCullough who was convicted of murdering little Maria Ridulph. He truly seemed guilty, there was so much evidence against him, but now prosecutors have decided his sketchy alibi was valid after all.

“If someone has our son, please bring him home. We won’t be angry. We will be forgiving and grateful. We are devastated to have our son taken from us.”

He allows for someone not to have their son with the word IFIf he wandered, given the temps it is unlikely he would survive the night.Would it not have been better to say:

To whoever has our son, please bring him home. We won’t be angry. We will be forgiving and grateful. We are devastated to have our son taken from us.”

Especially if they believe abduction rather than wandering off.

“It is unlike our son to wander off of our property, and, if he ever went anywhere, he would always have our dog with him,” Martens said reading through tears from a prepared statement with his wife at his side. “Anyone with information, please find it in your hearts to do the right thing and come forward.If this is true about the dog then, since the dog is with them it would preclude him wandering unless he did and the dog returned to the house later.It doesn't say how big the farm is, if it was a large farm acreage wise, it would be sheer bad luck if their son wandered off playing and was then abducted by an opportunist.Why would an abductor be on their property, especially in the evening?Depending where the house is located to public roads, it could have been possible for a passing vehicle to see him and grab him before driving off.However, if the dog was with him at the time, would the dog have done anything to protect him from the stranger such as barking, growling or biting said stranger.

When did they realize he was missing?What did they do immediately prior to realizing Chase was missing?What did they do immediately after they realized Chase was missing?Who called 911?What was said?Has he ever wandered off before?Does he have a favorite place to play?When was he last seen by an independent witness?

Regarding the search were heat seeking helicopters used as warm bodies would be easily spotted especially on a cold night?

I hope he is found alive, given the temps though at this time of year and the length of time he has been outside, he may have succumbed to the cold or possibly fell into water or fell prey to local wildlife.

The RCMP underwater recovery team will return to the area where searchers are desperately looking for signs of missing toddler Chase Martens.The search area has now expanded to four kilometres.

More than 500 people showed up to help the search on Friday, and police expect another large group of volunteers to show up again on Saturday.On Friday, the search involved unmanned aerial vehicles mapping the area.Two-year-old Chase was last seen on Tuesday around 6 p.m. when his parents last saw him playing outside their home near Austin, Man.Police said they will provide updates on the search when new information becomes available.

As for the Ted Cruz matter, I listened to the majority of the statement on a radio show. Wasn't transcribing it, but listening carefully, and (unfortunately) I didn't hear the reliable denial of, "I did not have an affair," or whatever else would be expected. I'm planning on voting for Ted Cruz, and I'm really working to not slip into the tempting state of cognitive dissonance by dismissing the lack of reliable denial. However, I do have questions, and these are questions I have had previously (although I haven't really cared to ask them before because usually the "deception indicated" has matched my feeling/opinion about the matter).

1) When I think about an accusation and an expected response, without fail the first thought that comes to mind is, "I NEVER did [that]." ie, "I NEVER cheated on you!" or "I would NEVER hurt my daughter!" In fact, on the super trashy lie detector shows I watch, people who are being truthful often state this exact phrase. Another one, "That is a lie!" These are not "reliable denials" but they are things that truthful people would/have said. I am proud of being a very honest person, someone who "would never" cheat and "has never" cheated. I guess my thought is, can it be possible that an individual's own language doesn't conform to the classic "reliable denial," whether the person is just a dramatic individual or a politician ginning up the press.

2) I think it's clear from the Ted Cruz statements that his priority was to counterstrike against this attack by turning it back onto Trump (who is very likely involved, however peripherally, with this story). If that is his priority, would a "reliable denial" be present in the statement? Could it be that characterizing the story as an "attack, garbage, trash or lies" takes precedence over issuing a denial? Does anyone get what I'm saying here, that maybe a reliable denial is missing because he doesn't care to deign it with a response, thereby legitimizing it? I'm thinking about the specific context of politics, where statements are very carefully crafted to convey certain ideas/implications.

^ I'm recognizing that there is cognitive dissonance in my perception of his statement, but I find it extremely unlikely to be true. Mark Levin stated on his show that several left-leaning and Trump-supporting sources (specifically, Politico, New York Times, Breitbart, etc.) had this information "shopped" to them and they declined to publish it. This would be a huge scoop, but they did not publish it, allegedly because their own investigations could not verify the information. In addition, the National Enquirer has essentially served to take out Trump's main competition throughout this election cycle. First it was Ben Carson, then Rubio, now Cruz. And Trump is good friends with a National Enquirer bigwig. Roger Stone claims there have been "rumors" of this for a while, but I've never seen a hint of such, and I spend a lot of time keeping up with politics in the United States. I've been following Cruz specifically since 2013, and have heard all the usual attacks against him, but nothing of this sort. I feel very strongly that this is not true, and I'm hoping someone can address the hypotheticals in my questions above. Gracias y'all!

I want to speak to the idea of a direct lie in an open statement. I have come to know someone over the last eight years who is such a liar. He of course engages in those "bends of truth" that avoid an outright lie, but he also has the capability and tendency to insert absurd falsehoods in open statements, literally making up situations that never happened to make himself look good or garner attention. After a few years, I began to catch onto these kinds of lies; the stories had always seemed fantastic, but usually a story worth telling isn't mundane, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. However he was literally making things up in entirely open statements, to manipulate perception and in a way invent himself as the person I think he tried to convince HIMSELF he was. That's the thing about a lie - if you make yourself believe it, it eliminates some of the stress of telling it. After this person's horrible lies came to light, I became more deeply involved in following this site because it has helped me gain so much clarity and empowered me to deal with this completely freaking insane person in my life. He is dangerous - he has recently taken up some disturbing harassment, stalking-type behaviors where he has called a workplace and made serious (false) accusations in an attempt to screw with someone's life. The point is, people who can directly lie, not the truth-fudgers but the Casey Anthony, Nikkole Paulun type liars, they are truly terrifying. People will often say, "What's scary about his lies is that he puts in just enough truth that it's hard to figure out where the deception arises." I get that, and I agree - but until you deal with a nutcase who can just MAKE THINGS UP without seemingly experiencing the internal stress, you don't know how scary a liar can be.

This has been something deeply troubling to myself and my family, which is why I was somewhat vague in the statements above.

^ And I think you have to be very confident or very stupid to engage in such direct lies, because you have to know that you will be caught if you are not grounding yourself in SOMETHING true. Like Casey Anthony, she was probably a little bit of both, and also I think she didn't really care. Maybe that's the terrifying thing - maybe these people really don't care about the consequences of getting caught.

Nic, I appreciate the response. But that's exactly my point - if I was being accused of something, I'm not sure that a reliable denial would come out of my mouth. When I think about accusations/responses, the first thing to come to mind is phrases that aren't "reliable." And the phrasing of "I didn't ___" isn't something I can recall saying when denying (false) accusations, unless maybe someone framed it as, "Did you...?" followed by "No, I did not..." My thoughts above relate to the situation where someone isn't there to "deny" but there to discredit the accusation at the start. If you think the accusation is ridiculous, I'm kind of thinking it's reasonable to consider that someone's "priority" wouldn't be to convince someone of their honesty, but instead to discredit the ones doing the attacking. I totally acknowledge the principle behind the reliable denial, but I'm wondering about verifiable instances when a truthful person DOESN'T issue it, and why that may be.

As for Anonymous, that just made the accusations less credible to me. It's been my opinion that Anonymous has been hijacked by agent provocateurs, it's far more cozy with the establishment than it puts forth.

Penny -interesting posts and subject. This may be some peope's reasons for not denying a false accusation - these are mine, others no doubt share them, but I don't know how typical this is.

I think it's undermining of one's dignity to defend oneself against a false accusation, especially if it's something ridiculous - for the most part I don't and wouldn't allow myself (I do - but rarely).

A tactic of some people who like to be in control is to make false accusations in order to force their target to defend themselves - to dance to their tune is to belittle and humiliate oneself, which is the desired response - often, that's all they want. I have noticed it happens on-line a lot, here not so much, depending on who is round. The expected response is always a denial, and a lengthy indignant rebuttal - so not to make any response takes the wind out of an accuser's sails, on-line or in real life. I might fret about something horrible someone has said, but they wouldn't know about it - no-one likes to be falsely accused, or even accused, I find online it's like water off a duck's back, but it does sometimes make me wonder how someone can think or say something when it is so far from the truth, and sometimes plain nasty - I think some people enjoy being unpleasant. They think they have 'won' either way - to not respond can be taken as an admission of 'guilt', and the accusation stands - people may wonder why you don't respond. To respond is to give an accuser what they want: if you respond you have entered their unpleasant power game, so no. Just no, and then some - most of the time - I don't often rise to the bait. Let people wonder, but I don't want, or find a need, to defend myself. I like explaining myself (trying to), defending my stand on something, if I have one, in a friendly context, even accusing myself - but if someone attacks me, I am unlikely to defend myself more than occasionally, and then only if I'm low in patience reserves. Others, in my 'real life', see it as a problem, on my behalf, that I tend not to defend myself - in my mind, and through my silence, I am rising above it, whatever it may be. So - that's how it is with me - maybe others here react similarly.

Penny, regarding your 10:45 pm post: How strange that I read that when just moments prior, I was feeling worried (terrified) about a similar type of liar in my life! I wasn't going to post about it, because I fear that it could make me look crazy. But after reading your post, I feel like someone out there won't see me as crazy. Just a few minutes ago, I was sitting here wondering if I could ask the police to put a GPS on me, like one of those ankle cuff things they put on people to keep track of them. Here's why: the freaking crazy liar in my life will stop at nothing, in her inconsolable jealousy of me. I've never EVER known such a liar, such a manipulative person. She imagines herself a "lawyer", and is very good at writing long letters and making accusations. EVERY WORD OUT OF HER MOUTH IS A LIE. SHE LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING. She is calmly full of hatred and of negative energy, every single negative emotion in the book, along with all the demons in the Universe. She's a family member, and nothing makes her happier than my suffering. She would be joyous if I got a terrible disease and died. All I want is for her to be out of my life. I'm contemplating cutting her out of my life. As it plays out in my mind, a restraining order against her will probably become needed, and then her terrifying rage will lead to her "counter-attacking" by making false accusations against me, and her ability and willingness to lie and to "accuse" knows no bounds. I picture her counter-filing the restraining order, and then accusing me of violent assault and getting me arrested. I know how crazy I sound. I am terrified. She's quite a bit older than me, and she emotionally abused me all my life. I now realize I have a PTSD reaction to her, and I go into heart-pounding fight-or-flight mode. If only I could just get her out of my life. If I could wear the police cuff, none of her accusations could hold water b/c cops would have proof of my whereabouts at all times, and the cuff will come in handy if she kidnaps me and locks me in her basement. Ha ha, okay, as REAL of a possibility that all seems (my fear is real), I realize my imagination might be working overtime. On the other hand, maybe I'm reacting in a normal and rational way to an extreme threat to my safety and well-being.

Anon at 8.04 - maybe check out Amazon for a personal GPS device - key ring type with SOS - I don't know if any will keep a record of your whereabouts or if they are all real time only, but might be a good back up to a phone, just in case.

My thoughts above relate to the situation where someone isn't there to "deny" but there to discredit the accusation at the start. . If you think the accusation is ridiculous, I'm kind of thinking it's reasonable to consider that someone's "priority" wouldn't be to convince someone of their honesty, but instead to discredit the ones doing the attacking.

That’s what the liar is hoping you’ll believe. (Discredit = honesty.) But the first does not equate to the latter.

Cruz is in the race of his political career. Other candidates before him, (Edwards, for instance,) were knocked out for less. I’m talking just one infidelity splashed on the front pages of the National Enquirer killed his run for the most power job, arguably, in the world. Why wouldn’t Cruz therefore offer up a reliable denial when he has so much riding [it]?

Anonymous - I linked you to it to show you that the mainstream media would prefer you believe this scandal came from Trump and friends by not reporting where it was coming from in the first place. I have no idea who Anonymous is. But if they’re indeed the ones shopping around the ‘truth’ why does it make it any less truthful? Because you don’t find them credible so you refuse to believe it? What if what they’re threatening to reveal is true? Would it be clearer to you then that a liar would rather discredit than lie about the truth?

CptkD, thanks so incredibly much for your replies. It means SO MUCH to me!! Yeh, you're right - no one deserves to live like this!! Thank you!! I have a couple of friends who know ALL about her, and I have lots of emails, and I have talked to some extended family about her over the years. Good point you make - I will start documenting better, I promise. Thanks for reading, and thanks for your heartfelt replies. I'll go by the name Lucy here. I'll keep you posted. I so appreciate your interest.-Lucy

Penny and anonymous, I have a liar and manipulator in the family (father-in-law's mistress). She has been nothing less that a emotional weapon of mass destruction. A real polarizing effect between every healthy relationship in this family (between the grandfather and grandkids, sister-in-law and me, father and son, especially her and I.) She is an expert at pitching one against the other. She is Selfish Jealous and Possessive.. The only people The Witch wants around her and my father-in-law are her daughter, partner and grandson. My sister-in-law, and husband when he's visiting, too, are welcomed to stay with them as a demonstration of, contrary to what I say, my father-in-law's family "is" welcomed. (Easy to be inclusive when they're home for a couple of days and they live in another country.) Long story short, I wrote my sister-in-law a novella last summer essentially outlining everything that has been going on for the past 10 years and I outlined exactly how she has been emotionally manipulated and used to the detriment of her relationship with basically the only family she has (both of my in-laws are only kids in their 80's and she married well into her 40's and never had kids of her own). The motivation being that the mistress was uninvited to her wedding because my brother-in-law didn't want a mockery of his wedding (mother-in-law to be sitting home, while his father-in-law to be's mistress attended his wedding). I pointed out that it was her wedding, but her humiliation. I cc'd both my husband and my brother-in-law on this novella. I forewarned her that it wasn't Sunday night reading beforehand and to be sure that she was not alone when she read it. She was very upset. (Understatement.) At me. However, my husband added a multi-page addendum of his own and after a few weeks things settled down and things between us turned 180 degrees. The bottom line is that I alerted her to the games and the 'how', so she she was able to keep it in her back pocket and let events play out "as usual". It didn't take her long to see that she was indeed being goaded into destructive behaviour the ultimate loser being her.

Happily we recently arrived back from a weeks' vacation spent with my sister and brother-law. A whole week! (You know what they say about fish and company...both go bad after three days.) :0)

It was awesome getting together with them without The Witch playing games in the background via email. My father-in-law is a lost cause. He'd rather give it all up for 'company' than go against what The Witch wants. I'm good with that. I have resolved his involvement with my kids to be nothing more than a grandparent who lives in another province whom we see when we can.

I should say that further to Penny's thoughts about discrediting the liar, evidently you can see that I have done just that. It wasn't enough to try to prove they were lying and discrediting me. Instead, I had to put the liar on ignore (ignore means to avoid, which is what she wanted) and circumvent her entirely by taking the high road and speak adult-to-adult with my sister-in-law. It would have been much simpler to write off my sister and brother-in-law, but I knew the truth and I wasn't willing to let them go until they knew it too. As I said to them, I had nothing to lose as what was between us to begin with, was already nothing. Things would just carry as usual (her speaking by email with my husband, and a cursory/polite half day visit when she visited...in a restaurant.)

Nic - It's so cool you were able to write to them, and that it opened their eyes to her manipulation. That's often part of why people like that succeed in their destruction of others' lives & relationships: People are blind to their lies and shenanigans. Or don't want to see. Another reason for the monsters' success: People lack backbone. It's easier to just go along / cooperate with the monster, rather than stand up and say NO MORE, and refuse to allow the monster to destroy all that is most precious. Don't even get me started - - Now I'm thinking about family members who have done that all along...-Lucy

Penny, are you saying that if you were wrongly accused of something, especially if it's serious, your chosen words likely would fit the unreliable denial?

For example you might say, "I would never do something like that!" or ask rhetorically, "How could you even think that?" with or without directly saying you didn't do it?

If so, that's why Peter emphasizes that they're guidelines, and he cautions against absolutes.A well-trained SA would highlight those responses as sensitive and further question you accordingly, not instantly conclude you're guilty!

^ I thought you were referencing the group Anonymous that recently attacked Trump. Misunderstanding, my bad. :)

Very good point about the priority of the liar to be to discredit; likewise, so is the goal of politicians (maybe that's why they come across as liars so much, lol). But I still think you're kind of missing my point, which is close to what Hey Jude said at 6:29. In politics, every statement is hugely significant and "tactical." I can see an absence of a reliable denial (and instead, a focus on discrediting the rumors) to "take the wind out of the sails" of the intended hit piece.

I don't think it's relevant whether there was an accusation of one or five women, you've mentioned that a few times. The severity of the accusation doesn't necessarily add to its veracity.

What if what they’re threatening to reveal is true? Would it be clearer to you then that a liar would rather discredit than lie about the truth?

I've already acknowledged I understand the reliable denial principle, and above agreed with your great point, that liars seek to discredit. It's not "unclear" to me, but perhaps my question about the influence of politics on speech hasn't been clear to you.

I also want to reiterate something I think is significant: Honest people do not always express a reliable denial. I think we could all agree that even people being truthful don't always say the three-component reliable denial, so under what circumstances does that happen? And, could political speech be an influence on that? I want to understand why that question is or isn't legitimate.

"Because you don't find it credible you refuse to believe it." No, I said if it came from that source I would be less likely to believe it. I'm well aware of the phenomenon of confirmation bias, and I strive to be very honest in my processing of current events / politics. When this story first came out, I researched it and saw the info about the Rubio camp's possible involvement, but I haven't seen it repeated anywhere else, so I'm not sure what to think about that. Again, I reference the idea that this would be a huge media event like the John Edwards affair was - so why is the coverage of it so low? Shoot, it hasn't even been on Drudge, I'd think Matt Drudge would be all over this story if it was legitimate. But this whole vein of conversation isn't exactly what I wanted to get into. My focus wasn't "is that source legitimate?" it was (and I led with!) "Ted Cruz did not issue a reliable denial. Why not?"

Here, again, are my questions:

1) How do we explain when truthful/innocent people do not issue a reliable denial? Examples: "The accusations are false," or "I never did that!" or "I would never cheat on you," or "It's all bullshit."

2) Can the realm of politics change what is "expected" based on political maneuvering? ie, the priority isn't to deny because it almost gives credence to the accusations by addressing them; instead, the focus is on counterstriking by putting the focus onto the opponent. If a false story is released, it can still be damaging because it is sensational; so if a political camp's priority is to take the focus off the initial story and instead create a new sensation ("garbage" and "trash" tactics), can that explain the lack of reliable denial?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And I agree with your response to that, that the statements need to be flagged and pursued further. I think for me, I don't like being thought of as a liar because I try to be a very honest person (not just with other people, but with myself - ie, acknowledging the influences of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, having integrity about the truth, etc.). But I think if I'm ever accused of something, it's very sensitive to me because it feels so uncomfortable for anyone to even think of me as unreliable or a liar or something.

Nic @10:44, and the post above that

Holy cow! Bravo to your ability to turn things around. It can be overwhelming to deal with chaos like that, I'm glad for you and (most of) your family's sake that you were able to "discredit the liar." Thanks for connecting that to our discussion. It was interesting.

Oh btw Nic! - I am totally open to the idea that it was a Rubio / other politician thing. I didn't state that clearly above when talking about Anonymous or the source of the allegation.

To Anon @8:04

I am so sorry this person has caused you so much anxiety and worry. It is scary to deal with people like that, and the problem with insane, completely groundless accusations is that you are always playing "defense" against them. A lot of the time, it's impossible to be seen as credible when you're in the denial mode, because the person who makes the accusation has already had a chance to influence opinion against you. I absolutely agree that you need to be documenting all of these incidents, and I think the GPS is a good idea! Sometimes dealing with people like this makes a person feel very paranoid, but I think it is a self-preservation tendency and is reasonable based on the insanity you're dealing with! But the biggest thing you can do - CUT HER OUT OF YOUR LIFE! Seriously. That's what we're working to do with the person we've been dealing with, and although his craziness kind of stepped up a notch when he realized we were serious about him getting out, our lives are already sooo much better. DO IT! :)

Penny, thanks so incredibly much for your words. It's so nice to hear from someone who gets it. I'm going to try to do as you advise, but it's complicated, and won't be without some cost, but I'm realizing lately that my well-being is priceless, and therefore that shouldn't even be a consideration. I will post how it goes, always signing off as...-Lucy

I also want to reiterate something I think is significant: Honest people do not always express a reliable denial. I think we could all agree that even people being truthful don't always say the three-component reliable denial, so under what circumstances does that happen?

In my opinion, it boils down to circumstance and what is on the line, i.e., level of threat. If someone is dealing with a nuisance, the first person could simply decide the battle (and company,) aren't worth their time. If your job, your bonus, credibility with your spouse, your professional integrity, safety of children in your company, is called into question, I believe an honest person would naturally fall into a reliable denial. That's my belief. I am not in a position, except by observing the news, to witness first-hand that level of threat, so I can't give you anything more than a guess. Peter would have to chime in on this for you.

I don't think it's relevant whether there was an accusation of one or five women, you've mentioned that a few times. The severity of the accusation doesn't necessarily add to its veracity.

I see it differently. In this case I see that there is the severity of the accusation (repeated infidelity challenges integrity about willingness to lie continually when they are asking a nation to elect them the the ultimate position of trust) and behaviour (weak moment versus compulsivity (flagrant abuse of position when given the opportunity)). This is how I see it. You don't have to agree with me. I am betting this is how Cruz sees it, too, otherwise (I am assuming) he wouldn't have gone against his campaign manager and just not say anything at all. I think that would have been the "preferred tactic".

Can the realm of politics change what is "expected" based on political maneuvering?

In my opinion, no, for the simple fact that the relationship that use to exist between politicians and the media has evaporated with the WWW. There has to be control and collusion for political maneuvering to exist. That control has been lost.

Further to control above... There are too many people "in the know" willing to earn a buck by selling their "story". Compound that with handheld devices, like the iPhone, it's ability for anyone and everyone, to record and document and post on multiple platforms at a whim, means an unintended consequence/trending story. Unless you're powerful enough to call up Twitter and ask that the trend be removed. :0) (Stop the story.) But by then, it's too late.

On a personal level of reliable denial and threat, I already posted my personal experience when my integrity was called into question. I had zero problem issuing a reliable denial, which I made more loudly each time until my boss "indulged" me and I could prove otherwise.

You are most welcome, 'Lucy'!I am glad to hear, that there ARE 'Others' aware of the situation - As well as you having already accumulated some 'emails' as 'written' documentation of the ongoing ''harassment'!Keep these together with a 'Journal' / Memo Book - And continue to 'document'!Please also remember to keep this in a SAFE place - And only 'Disclose' where this can be found 'In the event of' - To ONE person whom you can TRUST in & Who you know, would immediately come forth with this 'Package' of information!

Again, your SAFETY is of utmost importance here & therefore should you feel that a RESTRAINING ORDER is required, please DONT hesitate to seek one out!As well, please know that going to speak to Law Enforcement Services in your Community, can be of help - To seek guidance, while putting them on notice & advising them of this existing/ongoing issue!!You may also want to seek out any other Community Resources related to/pertaining to, or offering assistance/counseling for Victims of STALKING/HARASSMENT/PERSONA L ASSAULT/CRIME.

I guess what I'm getting at - Long story * SHORT!DONT do this 'Alone'!Please DONT feel all alone!&Please DONT leave yourself VULNERABLE & ALONE!!

There's HELP out there!I implore you to reach out & find whatever CAN 'Protect' YOU!

CptKDI am going to speak to the cops. I would never have even thought of that. Now I see how reasonable and good idea that is. I cannot tell you - - I SO appreciate your advice and your words. It's incredible to get replies from someone who seems to fully understand a situation that is beyond most people's experience!! I'm lucky to have your input, and thanks so incredibly much.Lucy